For information on a Congressional initiative to reward amateur astronomers who study NEOs, and also a legal paper on obligations to mitigate impact effects.

THE PROPOSED PETE CONRAD AWARDS BILL

H.R.4613
Sponsor: Rep Dana Rohrabacher (introduced 4/25/2002)

Title: To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to establish an awards program in honor of Charles "Pete" Conrad, astronaut and space scientist, for recognizing the discoveries made by amateur astronomers of asteroids with near-Earth orbit trajectories.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Charles Pete Conrad Astronomy Award Act. This act is intended to encourage amateur astronomers to discover new and attract previously identified asteroids and other heavenly bodies, particularly those that threaten a close approach to the Earth. This act is named after the legendary pilot, astronomer and space entrepreneur, Pete Conrad, who I was honored to know. He was a constituent of mine as well. Unfortunately, he passed away after a tragic motorcycle accident just last year. Charles Pete Conrad made history and today in his honor and in his memory I am introducing a bill that could help protect the United States of America and, yes, the entire world.

Pete Conrad more than anything else was a patriot who loved his country and felt that space would provide peace and prosperity for all of human kind. This act contains three categories of awards.

The first category is an award for the amateur astronomer who discovers the largest asteroid crossing in near-Earth orbit.

The second category, an award to an amateur astronomer for discovering asteroids using information derived from professional sources and locating newly discovered asteroids.

The third category, an award for those who provide the greatest service to update Minor Planet Center's catalog of known asteroids.

Let me just state that for those people who believe that there is no threat and that we live in a world today where those movies that talked about asteroids colliding with the world and the threat that it posed, that that is all science fiction, I have got bad news for them. It is not science fiction.

There are numerous examples of asteroids and comets in the last few years that have come very near to the world and not been undetected until the last minute or even after they pass by the world. One of them was coming in from the Sun and was not seen until after it passed the Earth's orbit.

If any of these asteroids or comets would have hit the Earth, it would have been a catastrophic occasion, perhaps killing hundreds of millions of people. Perhaps in one case in the past, millions of years ago, that is perhaps what eliminated the dinosaur life on our planet.

The following is a list of examples of recently observed asteroids:

* An asteroid about 300 meters in size crossed a near-Earth orbit about 500,000 miles from our planet in October of last year.

* An asteroid about the size of three football fields made its closest approach to the Earth (roughly the same distance: twice the Moon's distance from the Earth) on January 7, 2002.

* An asteroid reportedly the size of an 18-story building on a close approach to Earth (just a bit farther out than the Moon) was observed on March 8.

The disturbing point about this asteroid is that it was seen from Earth again only after it had moved out of the glare of the Sun and into the night sky on March 12.

For each nearby asteroid that is spotted there are several that pass entirely unnoticed.

Some researchers estimated that there are roughly 25 asteroids, roughly the size of the one observed on March 12, cross a near-Earth orbit that is closer than the Moon. Astronomers believe that the number of undiscovered asteroids far exceeds the known list currently available to the scientific community.

We need to know if there is a threat coming at the world. And having our young people, giving them awards, having amateur astronomers look into the sky to help us find those objects is something that we are mobilizing the people to help us discover that possible threat. If we see something coming at us that is years away, then we can handle that. We can do something about it. If we do not find out until a mere month or two beforehand, the Earth could be in real danger.

I was the chairman of a hearing in which we had the experts testify on this issue; and one expert said, Congressman, you do not have to worry about that. There is about as much chance of a comet hitting the Earth as it is of you going to Las Vegas and getting a royal straight flush. And I said, Oh, my gosh. I did get a royal straight flush once. I remember that happening.

So this is a real threat, but it is not something we have to fear. It is something we have to look at and try to find a way to identify threats. It is called Home Planet Defense. We need to pay some attention to it; and then if an asteroid does threaten us, we will be able to identify it far in advance and deter it from its path so it would not hurt the people of the world.

This is the purpose of this Pete Conrad bill. We want to get our young people more interested in space and science and mathematics. This bill is a way to do it. The awards will be administered by the Smithsonian Institution, and I am asking all of my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Pete Conrad Award bill because this bill will do a great deal in bringing to our young people the realities of science and America's space program. Let us get them off of these electronic games and get them into the real world and the real world may well be dealing with threats coming to us from outer space from great distances away, asteroids and comets that we should know about.

Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Charles Pete Conrad Astronomy Award Act, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and seeing that we get young Americans looking up just like Pete Conrad, always looking up and getting involved.

By Leonard David
space.com
30 April 2002

The late Charles Conrad, a veteran astronaut who flew Gemini, Skylab, and Apollo missions, is recognized in a bill before the U.S. Congress that is tied to spotting celestial bodies that could harm Earth.

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California introduced on April 25 the Charles Pete Conrad Astronomy Award Act. The Act calls for the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to establish an awards program in honor of the astronaut. Conrad was killed on July 8, 1999 in a tragic motorcycle accident in Ojai, California. He was 69 years of age.

The Act is intended to encourage amateur astronomers to discover new heavenly bodies and keep an eye on previously identified objects, particularly those that threaten a close approach to Earth.

Award categories

The bill, House Resolution 4613 (H.R. 4613), calls for three categories of awards:

* The first category is an award for the amateur astronomer who discovers the largest asteroid crossing in near-Earth orbit;

* The second category is an award to an amateur astronomer for discovering asteroids using information derived from professional sources and locating newly discovered asteroids; and

* The third category is an award for those who provide the greatest service in updating the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Minor Planet Center's catalog of known asteroids.

Rohrabacher noted that the Act underscores the fact that asteroids colliding with Earth, and the threat they pose, is not science fiction.

"There are numerous examples of asteroids and comets in the last few years that have come very near to the world and have not been detected until the last minute or even after they pass by the world. One of them was coming in from the Sun and was not seen until after it passed the Earth's orbit. If any of these asteroids or comets would have hit the Earth, it would have been a catastrophic occasion, perhaps killing hundreds of millions of people," Rohrabacher said.

Home planet defense

The lawmaker said that by providing awards, amateur astronomers could look into the sky to help find troublesome objects. "We are mobilizing the people to help us discover that possible threat," he said.

Rohrabacher said that he once chaired a hearing on the issue, observing that one witness said not to worry about the problem. That authority testified that there is about as much chance of a comet hitting the Earth as it is of going to Las Vegas and getting a royal straight flush, the lawmaker recounted.

"And I said, oh, my gosh. I did get a royal straight flush once. I remember that happening. So this is a real threat, but it is not something we have to fear. It is something we have to look at and try to find a way to identify threats. It is called Home Planet Defense. We need to pay some attention to it; and then if an asteroid does threaten us, we will be able to identify it far in advance and deter it from its path so it would not hurt the people of the world," Rohrabacher said.

Looking up and getting involved

A key purpose of the bill is to get young people more interested in space and science and mathematics.

The awards would be administered by the Smithsonian Institution, with Rohrabacher asking his U.S. Congress colleagues to join in by co-sponsoring the Pete Conrad Award bill.

"This bill will do a great deal in bringing to our young people the realities of science and America's space program. Let us get them off of these electronic games and get them into the real world and the real world may well be dealing with threats coming to us from outer space from great distances away&asteroids and comets that we should know about," Rohrabacher said. "I look forward to working with my colleagues and seeing that we get young Americans looking up just like Pete Conrad&always looking up and getting involved.

Spaceguard Survey generates additional concern about the NEO impact hazard. The more NEAs are discovered, the greater the interest in accelerating the survey. The fact is that a substantial fraction of the NEAs discovered will be close to the Earth, and as many will be found after closest approach as before; this is the way the Spaceguard Survey is designed to work. It is evidence of success of the system. But it also has the effect of calling attention to the large number of NEAs and thus to the impact risk, an exemplified in the examples of potentially dangerous asteroids given by Mr. Rohrabacher in introducing this proposed legislation.

LEGAL DUTY TO MITIGATE ASTEROID OR COMET COLLISIONS WITH THE EARTH

Press Release: Iowa City, Iowa - April 13, 2002

In the 1960's, a period that many called the "Golden Age of Space," the public began to doubt the writings of lawyers who addressed space-related topics. Too many had "jumped on board the ship," so to speak. Today, one area where the attention of lawyers is desperately needed relates to the mitigation of threats posed by asteroid or comet collisions with the Earth.

Aside from the efforts of nations to conduct sky searches and catalogue potential threats, there exist few, if any, plans to evacuate nations, educate the public about the nature of a significant impact, or deal with the rationing of scarce resources, in the event that scientists or military personnel are unable to destroy or deflect an oncoming space body of significant mass.

In a recent study published by the Iowa Law Review, Policy Analyst Evan R. Seamone has addressed the duty to mitigate asteroid and comet impacts from the perspective of international law. The report argues that the nature of the dangers posed by asteroids and comets place the threat in the category of certain types of disasters for which the international community is unprepared. Similar threats include the mutation of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome into an airborne virus or the collapse of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the Canary Islands, which would devastate multiple nations simultaneously.

Seamone argues that mitigating asteroid or comet threats necessarily involves preventive measures including the commitment of resources and personnel. He first explains the three major obstacles that must be overcome before mitigation efforts will succeed. First, the public must be educated to treat the threat seriously, an objective attainable by developing international protocols, especially involving warning mechanisms and the verification of actual threats. Second, the dangers posed by these unique threats must be situated in policies that extend beyond traditional disaster response measures at the international level, which often suffer from a lack of coordination. Third, duties to commit resources preventively must rest on principles other than the allocation of blame, which characterizes much of the corpus of law dealing with international responsibilities to mitigate transboundary harm.

Next, recognizing the danger posed to governments in the absence of serious preventive coordination, the report associates the duty to mitigate asteroid and comet impacts with General Principles of International Law, as recognized by the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The legal precedents supporting international cooperation hinge on the duty to self-preserve as articulated by philosophers such as Vattel and Hobbes and in numerous State Constitutions guaranteeing essential necessities such as air, food, and water, and the extension of that duty, which would require nations to cooperate in order to secure the survival of their own populaces, as indicated in legal opinions such as the Island of Palmas case.

After pointing out manifestations of nations' adherence to the principle of "cooperative preservation," through duties to warn other nations of impending danger, such as Article 28 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses, and duties to mitigate impending danger, such as Principle VII of Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, Seamone recommends international collaboration similar to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), which deals with issues facing the Antarctic region, endowed with certain unique powers to influence legislation and the allocation of resources.

Elizabeth Davis

Excerpts (beginning and end of paper), without footnotes and references:

WHEN WISHING ON A STAR JUST WONT DO: THE LEGAL BASIS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE MITIGATION OF ASTEROID IMPACTS AND SIMILAR TRANSBOUNDARY DISASTERS

Evan R. Seamone

I. INTRODUCTION

You would feel as though you were in an oven turned on to broil. An enormous hole has been gouged in the Earth. Then, finally, the sky would turn black, absolutely, completely blackeverywhere all over the world. At first glance, with the horrors of the recent World Trade Center attacks fresh in their memory, readers might interpret this apocalyptic prediction as an attempt by the media to raise consciousness about the possibility of a nuclear bombing by terrorists.

Based on the publics rush to purchase survival equipment in response to the medias coverage of the events following September 11, 2001, Americans would probably treat the prediction quite seriously. In reality, however, the prediction addresses asteroid or comet collisions with the Earth. Because bombardments of the Earth by objects from space are potentially as unpredictable and dangerous as terrorist attacks, a key concern is whether public reactions to the prediction above would be similar. In this instance, simply substituting a different type of disaster would probably result in an entirely different response.

Denial and avoidance would be the most likely outcomes. Inevitably, some people would scoff at the notion, just as they did when astronomers predicted the likelihood of similar Earth collisions in 1998 and in 2000. On both occasions, notwithstanding the supposed certainty of the estimates, dust from unsold survival gear drifted across the empty aisles of military surplus stores like tumbleweeds through the streets of a ghost town. [Note from Morrison: I dont understand the above paragraph. What supposed certainty of the estimates? No public prediction has risen, even briefly, as high as the 1% probability level].

Should policymakers and emergency preparedness personnel be concerned that members of the public discriminate in their reactions to different types of disaster? This Note explains why the international public, and more precisely lawmakers, must treat infrequent, but extremely dangerous, natural disasters more seriously. It argues that nations are violating international law when they neglect the mitigation of exotic transboundary crises. It highlights how the repercussions from such harmful events cannot be as easily addressed by routine procedures that nations typically employ when responding to more commonplace disasters.

Ultimately, these generic measures have created a false sense of security. Certain characteristics make some natural disasters more serious than others. After all, sudden onset crises like tsunamis are more threatening than dangers posed by gradually rising water levels created by global warming. These differences prompt emergency response planners to factor the publics level of disaster preparation into their rankings of threat magnitude. Consequently, those threats to which nations regularly respond are potentially less dangerous than the ones that rarely, if ever, occur. The more common natural disasters include: thunderstorms, typhoons, tornadoes, and earthquakes.

Disaster planners sometimes cram the more infrequent threats into the overarching category of low probability, high consequence events. Normally, policymakers must devote extra effort in preparing for such occurrences because of the unknown risks involved. For example, even when the chances are minimal that a public area is polluted by carcinogens, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires a site to be decontaminated if tests indicate that one person in one million will contract cancer. However, even in cases where some unknown threats pose potentially greater harm than others, planners allocate more resources to those threats that seem less far-fetched.

Owing to political lobbying and cost benefit analyses in democratic societies, public planners will prioritize their responses to threats based on their familiarity with the risks posed. With a prompt and substantial allocation of resources, planners can theoretically measure the effectiveness of these commitments and increase the benefit society derives from the improvements they implement.

Unfortunately, this reasoning ignores the fact that megadisasters can, and do, occur. Examples of these rare but possible devastating crises include the Black Death of the Middle Ages, the Mount Vesuvius eruption in Italy in Roman Times, the New Madrid earthquake that ripped the Mississippi Valley apart in the early nineteenth century, the potential collapse of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the Canary Islands that could trigger 150-foot tsunami waves reaching the U.S. East Coast, Brazil, and portions of England, or the potential mutation of the Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) into an airborne virus.

In the aftermath of these possible but unpredictable crises, the international community would have to mitigate harm in entirely new ways. The question becomes one of whether planners are responding effectively to the potential repercussions of a crisis when they cast doubt on the likelihood of the occurrence and such doubt results in a limited allocation of resources. With defeatist logic prevailing in legislative and organizational circles, it is wrong to suggest that planners are effectively working to mitigate the threats of nontraditional megadisasters. Disaster mitigation involves a number of combined measures to respond to threats, including efforts to anticipate damage before it occurs and develop solutions for varying levels of devastation.

Because transboundary disasters touch the farthest reaches of the globe and threaten the stability of the international system of governance, appropriate responses must necessarily be international in scope. The spreading of losses and the conservation of resources would likewise favor the notion that nations should work together in mitigating such natural disasters.

From these simple assumptions, the emergence of some sort of international committee on transboundary disaster response should follow. Yet, the effectiveness of organizations like the United Nations in addressing even the more common variations of natural disaster is open to question.

This limited response to international crises may stem from two criticisms of international law. To a large extent, ineffectiveness results from the fact that the principles underlying international cooperation are steeped in moral obligations, which often are in conflict with the sovereign rights of nations. In short, considerations of goodwill and cultural exchange fail to outweigh the concerns of individual States about their own narrow interests.

Yet another reason explains why international lawmaking entities have largely ignored delineating responsibility for serious transboundary disasters. Simply put, nations have doubted the legitimacy of international law. In either instance, irresponsiveness to the question of international natural disaster mitigation arises because nations do not recognize their legal obligations.

Further development of the legal principles underlying the necessity of State action in the realm of international disaster relief will be necessary to counteract these negative forces. This Note uses the threat of collisions of large space bodies with the Earth as a vehicle to investigate the legal duties of nations to participate in collective efforts at megadisaster mitigation. Asteroids and comets are space bodies while meteors occupy a less-threatening category.

Although they differ in chemical composition and in visibility to the naked eye, large space bodies can endanger multiple nations simultaneously. Space bodies are ideal topics of investigation because the magnitude of the threats they pose is inestimable. Legal obligations to mitigate Earth impacts apply equally well to other infrequent threats that are currently of the lowest priority among disaster response personnel.

This Note adopts a five-part analytical approach in investigating the legal obligations to mitigate Earth impacts. Part II explores the reality of the threats posed by space bodies. Part III investigates obstacles that have limited the ability of nations to mitigate such threats. Part IV identifies the sources of law underlying international legal obligations to act and prevent or minimize such harm. Parts V and VI review numerous practices adopted by nations affirming the binding nature of shared duties to mitigate megadisasters. Part VII suggests ways in which nations can fulfill the duties identified in the prior sections.

II. THE SERIOUS THREAT OF EARTH COLLISIONS WITH SPACE BODIES

As is the case with other variations of exotic disasters, the dangers posed by a collision between comets or asteroids and the Earth grow with planners corresponding lack of preparation in developing response measures. Part II.A first considers what scientists and historians know of the dangers posed by space bodies. Part II.B explains how the current delegation of decision-making authority to scientists inexperienced with matters of disaster response and law has created false hope. Consequently, scientists incomplete response plans do not meet the requirements of true mitigation. In the face of continuing Earth bombardments by space objects, the international community must broaden the disaster planning process to include the expertise of practitioners of other disciplines, including and especially lawyers, who can construct frameworks for governing the responsibilities of all actors responding to multinational threats.

A. REASONS FOR CONCERN OVER THE DANGERS POSED BY EARTH IMPACTS

Even though collisions with space bodies could potentially extinguish all life on Earth, scientists were slow to appreciate the significance of the threat. Thousands of objects from space descend to our planets terra firma each year. Space bodies typically disintegrate before entering the Earths atmosphere, which is protected by a gaseous shroud that annually withstands several interplanetary strikes. But some projectiles can be so big and move so fast that the atmosphere cannot absorb their force, at which point damage occurs based on the size and velocity of the impacting object. The destruction of the dinosaurs demonstrates the seriousness of asteroid or comet collision, as opposed to commonplace disasters.

B. FAILURES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARTH IMPACT MITIGATION PROTOCOLS

Although government agencies have developed and funded plans to mitigate threats posed by objects from space, these plans, by themselves, fail to demonstrate effective preparation. Astronomers are theoretically mitigating interplanetary collisions by tracking objects likely to come within the Earths orbit. Since at least 1998, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has charted the course of many hundreds of Near-Earth-Orbiting Objects (NEOs). Other nations with available resources have also committed significant (though less) funding toward cataloguing threatening space objects using high-powered telescopes.

These efforts seem to convey a sense of commitment to global preparedness. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals a complete lack of disaster response measures to deal with post-sighting conditions. Plans are confused by unresolved international law: who gets evacuated and in what order? Who distributes resources? Who controls the flow of refugees across borders? The questions are infinite because the threat is inestimable. In many cases, scientists do not have the training or knowledge to provide useful guidance.

VII. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

Although both historic obligations and existing practices reveal an international commitment to both self-preservation and shared international disaster relief obligations, questions remain regarding the willingness of nations to adhere to cooperative preservation efforts respecting space bodies. After all, nations often neglect even those treaties to which they have joined as parties.

But, in the context of preventive measures to mitigate unforeseeable threats, cooperative preservation does not envision punishment for noncompliance. Instead, the legal concepts I have presented above should provide compelling reasons to evaluate environmental security risks in a new lightone where nations that are willing to address the issue can do so in an orderly waywith processes spelling out the delineation of responsibilities.

Certain dangers are so devastating that, upon their occurrence, governments inevitably develop plans to prevent similar harm. Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the World Trade Center attacks all marked events so horrific that nations rallied the resources to make a sustained collective effort necessary to regulate matters.

If an asteroid or comet of significant mass should strike a populated area, citizens of the world would undoubtedly expect to see implemented many of the preventive efforts I have urged. After all, nations must prevent their citizens from returning to the Hobbesian state of nature described in Part V.C.

When nations do not adequately handle serious threats, their citizens will often lose faith in figures of power. As a result, governments tend to respond immediately, and perhaps in an even more exaggerated way than necessary, to assure their citizens that their safety will be preserved. This Note holds nations to a higher standard of responsibility. Nations should no longer be preoccupied with the present, but should plan for the future. Governments must address serious concerns about allocating scarce resources and lay plans to cope with the horrific realities that will inevitably accompany megadisasters. Identifying legal bases to cooperate is more important than simply outlining the inner workings of international organizations that one hopes will fulfill such obligations. Organizational models abound. For example, shortly after the devastation of the atomic bombings in Japan, Bernard Baruch urged the development of a single international entity to regulate all atomic issues. At the heart of the Baruch Proposal was the realization that certain threats may be so devastating as to require a united effort of all humankind.

Cooperative preservation envisions a similar organizational response to threats to environmental security. Perhaps the United Nations might develop a Convention on Asteroid Mitigation and Transnational Natural Disasters, with the goal of establishing an independent organization to develop protocols for dealing with megadisasters.

Establishing an international body to deal with specific threats and develop binding solutions is not foreign to the United Nations. The most appropriate vehicle for mitigating Earth impacts by space bodies would mirror Professor Christopher Stones recommendations. For the past several years, Stone has fostered the establishment of a system of guardians who would be legal representatives for the natural environment.

These guardians would be endowed with special rights: [T]he guardian would be built into the institutional process . . . . [I]ts first chore would be to monitor. It would review [environmental] conditions not just to gather facts scientifically . . . . Second, the Guardian would exercise legislative function, not as a legislative body, but as part of a complex web of global policy-making institutions . . . . It could appear before international agencies [concerning its discoveries and recommendations] . . . . Third, it could be authorized to appear as a special intervenor-counsel . . . . International treaties should endow the Guardian with standing to initiate legal and diplomatic action. . . .

Because several organizations are currently empowered to deal with environmental harm less devastating than the harm posed by asteroids, nations should develop a similar organization to address all transboundary megadisasters. In the final analysis, regardless of our efforts to combat unknown environmental threats, [j]ust as avoiding an all-out nuclear exchange becomes a first priority of superpowers, so avoiding general environmental collapse becomes a first priority of all responsible states.

Collisions with Earth pose serious questions that perhaps only a diverse group of committed policymakers are capable of addressing successfully. By realizing the general principle of cooperative preservation and the need for proactive and anticipatory action to mitigate transnational disasters, we can begin to answer the legal questions relating to asteroid or comet impacts. Perhaps, these very principles will inform our understanding of the legal obligations related to other low probability, high consequence transnational crises. Congressman Burtons fears about the U.S. governments role during the time of the Skylab crisis illustrate the concerns expressed in this Note: I think I know what NASA is doing. They know they cannot control this, and they are scared to death. They dont know what to do. They will just do nothing and keep their fingers crossed, and maybe it will end up in the Indian Ocean. [Morrison note: the Skylab crises, if there was such a thing, was caused by failure to communicate to the public the extremely low level of any impact hazard.]

In other words, when Earth faces its next space-body collision crisis, let us hope and pray that there exists a functioning organization in which we can place our faith, rather than merely wishing on a star, for the survival of our species.